Nor should they be, of course.

E.g. my friend wanted to get married in the chapel at the university where she she studied as a postgraduate. They refused, because she hadn't been there for over 5 years. She accepted this, and had her wedding elsewhere. End of story.

For example, if a church accepts federal funds, say for running a shelter in the basement, then it may be liable in a lawsuit if it does not rent out the church hall, or even the church itself, for a ame sex marriage.

Interestingly, this is similar to what's going on with the HHS reproductive rights rule.

I don't see a negative there, and they shouldn't be offered such funding to begin with.

What's your measure?

Most of the government funding requiring compliance with anti-discrimination laws goes to clinics, community services, and the like - broadly already areas that the gov't funds. The gov't doesn't fund church ceremonies, including weddings.

So there's no possible way the law could be interpreted to read that churches are required to perform same-sex marriages - only that civil authorities would have to recognize the marriage, regardless of who performed the wedding ceremony (secular or not).

This is just hand-holding for the hand-wringers in CA who want to continue being bigots in their churches. Fine. Go be a bigot - it's no skin off society's teeth, since the law already has no effect on church bigotry. (Bigotry is, after all, protected by the 1st Amendment.)

yes, some local and state governments give the Boy Scouts freebies(use of public facilities, for example, for free or a nominal fee), but this free ride for Boy Scouts is decreasing.

Those governments that still give the Boy Scouts this indirect funding/free ride should stop.

and the article you linked to says that as well.

Discriminate.

not necessarily forcing them to abide by non-discrimination laws.

But again, this has nothing to do with churches, which are explicitly exempt from following such laws.

Of course, legalizing same sex marriages means they will be recognized by the state law and can be performed by government authorities. It means the government has to issue licenses if otherwise appropriate. That's all it means.

Haven't these people read the First Amendment. Haven't they heard about the separation of church and state.

Again, marriage has two meanings, one secular and one religious. When you marry in a church, the pastor has you fill out certain forms that satisfy secular authorities and blesses you -- which is the religious part of the ceremony. They are actually two functions administered by the person usually a pastor or priest who marries you.

Surely there is a pastor or priest on DU who can explain this process.

In Germany, at least when I was there, churches weren't allowed to perform legal wedding ceremonies. All LEGAL wedding ceremonies, that is to say the kind that make you a married couple in the eyes of the state, had to be performed by judges. You could then go to a church and get married in the eyes of God, if that was your prerogative. The same thing would work in the US.

or face losing their nonprofit status."

Churches would NOT be forced to perform any ceremony that contravenes their particular dogma.

Churches would NOT lose their non-profit status despite their unwillingness to adhere to laws regarding non-discrimination.

"Church-22."

No one's forcing churches to do anything....

except maybe decide which is more important, money or dogma.

It's a decision.

let's just fucking say it

friggin' AWESOME!!!

yes INDEED

Not all Dems know when to NOT be compassionate to the BS of wingers/religions/bellyachers, I doubt all gays do either. It is one of the unfortunate side effects of not being a hater. In my opinion, this is one of those times. No additional protection should be offered. IF it were to turn out that refusing to marry gays causes a loss of non-profit status, then so be it, why should any entity be protected against paying taxes when they are so discriminatory?

'Course, I don't think churches should not be non-profits at all, but that's another discussion.

I doubt "he is supporting the "rights" of others' to remain homophobic."

remain so without consequence, even though I don't believe any church has ever been held such a consequence.

The public and private sector, not so much. Religious institutions have a huge carve out due to the first amendment exempting them from most regulation, so they can be intolerant despite laws to the contrary governing other private sector institutions. Where religious institutions operate commercial enterprises, regulation step back in.

You have a cynical view of his motivations without any evidence to support your cynicism.

It might even make good political sense as it takes a false issue away. Your denial of the obvious in this thread is not unexpected.

Given the choice, I trust Leno's motives more than yours.

And even if they imagine themselves as progressive Democrats, they will fight against progressive goals if it might impact their church institution in any way.

that no gay couple is ever going to want to have their marriage blessed in a church that hates the idea of same-sex marriage and that has to be compelled to perform it. But I guess that shouldn't get in the way of still more political pandering to the nutbag Christians in their districts.

As there is no real possibility without this law that any church would be forced to perform any ceremony including a marriage ceremony, due to something called the establishment clause, the motivation for this law appears to be to sooth the irrational anxiety of the religious homophobes, that would be exactly a form of pandering.

will marry you in their church. at least that was the case when my sis got married 25 years ago in a catholic church. They don't just marry anyone off the street. Not sure how it is now, I got married by a judge and would never consider having anything to do with a church. I am just saying. I have never known a church to have to perform weddings for non members. As to renting a hall.... if they don't want money.... Around here we have fire halls.... people use them for their stuff.

for liberal churches.

churches in the US being forced to wed any couples contrary to the churches' doctrines

Politically, it represents an effort to undermine a "concern" used by the wingnuts for propaganda purposes

There are plenty of churches in CA that welcome GLBT people and same sex marriages.

I always assumed that no church would be forced to do this, but I also assumed no couple would want to go to one that didn't.

BTW, there are lots of hospitals that receive federal funds that refuse to provide abortion or even contraceptive services.

The consequence of that is that religion has nothing to do with it. Therefore, they can not be sued for discrimination if they do not. Read the committee's analysis and see who's for it and who's against it.